It E VIEWS. 
515 
Darwins Darwin. In another work* he says of Mr. Darwin’s theory, 
that “ the argument which applies to the improvement of the horse from 
an earlier stock, or of ape from ape, applies to the improvement of man 
from some simpler and lower stock than man ; ” for “ it is perfectly demon- 
strable that the structural differences which separate man from the apes, 
are not greater than those which separate some apes from others.” 
In other words he says, that if the various species of animals he the 
result of a progressive development from one another, by the Darwinian 
process of “natural selection,” he sees no reason why man should he 
exempted from the operation of this law ; for in his bodily structure he 
is as nearly allied to his humbler fellows as they are to one another. And 
as regards the mental distinction between the two (man and ape), our 
author gets over the difficulty by making the broad assertion that “ there 
is no faculty whatever that is not capable of improvement ; ” that “every 
faculty being dependent upon structure is varied and improved, with a 
variation and improvement in structure ; ” and that “ the attempt to draw 
a psychical distinction” (between man and the animals immediately below 
him in the scale) “ is equally futile,” for that “even the highest faculties of 
feeling and of intellect begin to germinate in the lower forms of life.” 
Let us now, for the purpose of dispassionate inquiry into its validity, put 
the author’s doctrine as follows : — 
Mr. Darwin believes in the origin of species by “ natural selection.” 
With a certain reservation, Mr. Huxley believes the same ; he considers it 
“ the only hypothesis regarding the origin of species of animals in general 
which has any scientific existence”+ and as such he does not hesitate to apply 
it to the origin of our race, inasmuch as the structural differences between 
man and ape are no greater than between one ape and another ; and there 
is no distinct line of demarcation in man’s mental constitution, as compared 
with the animals which precede him. 
Remembering, then, that we have so far no proof that one species of ape 
is derived from, another , and that we are not now considering the question 
of man’s place in the zoological system — that is to say, that we are not 
prosecuting our inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether the 
structural differences between him and the apes are sufficient to entitle 
him to the zoological distinction of a kingdom, class, order, or what not — 
we will now consider the conclusions at which the author has arrived in 
the present volume concerning the two forms of life, man and ape, and our 
readers shall judge whether or not they are favourable to his own doctrine. 
Let us take his summing up of the evidence, first as regards the general 
resemblance between the two forms : — 
“ In the general proportions of the body and limbs there is a remarkable 
difference between the gorilla and man, which at once strikes the eye. 
The gorilla’s brain-case is smaller, its trunk larger, its limbs shorter, its 
upper limbs longer in proportion than those of man,” J 
On our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic 
Nature. Ilardwicke. 
t “ Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature,” p. 100. 
+ IUd. p. 71. 
VOL. II. — NO. Till. 2 N 
